Top 10 UNDERRATED movies EVER!

Started by GodDamnImDaMan, September 03, 2003, 02:56:39 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Cecil

right, its the bleakest ending ever. tell me why you think these memories of him and monica are implanted.

besides, the end of humanity IS a happy ending, so either way...

mutinyco

Watch it. The machines are lying to him. Lying to him the way parents lie to children who don't understand any better. Also, just plain look at it. It's totally artificial looking. What, the machines were actually going to completely rebuild his house and bring her back to life? He's a machine. It's just input. Whether it's physical or programmed is of little importance. It's just information.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

mutinyco

All of which opens up another can of worms. This film will be revered in the future.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Pubrick

Quote from: mutinycoThis film will be revered in the future.
along with HULK and eyes wide shut.

anyway, to continue the AI debate i invite u all to this place. it's collecting dust.
under the paving stones.

Cecil

machines lie now? i guess i overlooked the shot where we clearly see that their fingers are crossed

this kind of behavio(u)r ("The super machines simply programmed him to have this final memory as a debt of gratitude") is completely illogical for a machine. does your computer console you after a hard day? does it thank you for adding ram?

Gold Trumpet

bleak or not,  the ending was inspired so much by the ending of 2001 that it seems easy to discredit because of how similiar they are.

I use to like AI a lot. I use to like Kubrick a lot as well. For me, the film is a physical road map of two directors in theme, directing and storytelling that really never amounts to much of a single work at all. Its just a history of two directors when book comparison could have been so much easier.

mutinyco, most argument and attention towards you seems not really of disagreement for your position, but for your attitude. So, do you get it?

~rougerum

Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: mutinycoDo you guys fully comprehend the ending? The kid is thawed years later by super machines. They find him special because he is the last machine in known existence to have had direct contact with humans -- who were ultimately responsible for creating the machines which now populate Earth.

David was programmed to always have the mentality of a child. His reasoning would never mature. He would always love Monica. The ending with his mother never actually happened in the physical world. The super machines simply programmed him to have this final memory as a debt of gratitude.

He doesn't become a real boy at the end. He's terminated. Dead.

By dying, he's now like every human that ever existed: dead. Everybody dies in the end. Only humanity is incapable of reconciling this. So we create religion to comfort us and technology to extend and make our lives more comfortable. And it's these things which are ultimately our downfall.

What you mistook as a happy ending is really the DEATH OF HUMANITY. By David being terminated the last link with humanity is terminated. And as a mecha programmed to love, perhaps that dies with him as well.

This is the most subversive thing I can imagine -- dressing up the apocalypse with overdone sentiment, tricking people into thinking they're watching one thing while something else entirely is taking place.

It's completely Spielberg's fault for making me overlook this. I assumed it was another happy ending he tacked on.

Still, it felt too happy. Even if it was subversive, it was too happy. I want a Kubrick subversive ending. I want the movie to end in the ice.

While you're at it, can you redeem the end of Minority Report?

mutinyco

I already have redeemed MR. Look elsewhere.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Gold Trumpet

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanStill, it felt too happy. Even if it was subversive, it was too happy.

It did. Thats why, in nyc's good summing up of the ending, I don't really believe it. It makes logistical sense for what is in the movie and all, but the feeling and filmmaking talent suggest something else. That's why much of the movie bothers me. It tries to understand Kubrick's intentions with Speilberg's talent. I think Speilberg is great and all, but not the filmmaker for this movie. He seems like he is playing with just a children's story by only making it mature. He doesn't take it the extra mile and apply Kubrick's skill to make it mean and feel more. A lot of the scenes in the movie feel like Speilberg trying to extend his skills into narrative too far removed and confusing with what he has to focus the immediate story on.

~rougerum

Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: mutinycoI already have redeemed MR. Look elsewhere.

http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1603&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

And... do you really think Speilberg has entered a phase of self-parody? Don't you think that he believed, maybe at least a little, that the robot kid became a real boy? After all, the premise and the tagline was... "OMFG! Can A.I. be human?" It's not funny as irony. I try to see it as a joke, and it's way over the top... no less cheesy than Minority Report. And it just feels so unecessary. Maybe it's less about the realities of the movie and the nuances of the plot, and more about the feeling. It feels stupid and wrong. And as a parody, it's exploitative and cheap. (this goes for MR too)

Pas

Down By Law ... way underrated even amongst the "art lovers" and "Che Guevara 4 prez" type of people.

Excalibur is kinda underrated too, it was nice movie with a good score and great performances by stars in the making.

ShanghaiOrange

Sometimes, I think mutinyco is just a really clever computer. :(
Last five films (theater)
-The Da Vinci Code: *
-Thank You For Smoking: ***
-Silent Hill: ***1/2 (high)
-Happy Together: ***1/2
-Slither: **

Last five films (video)
-Solaris: ***1/2
-Cobra Verde: ***1/2
-My Best Fiend: **1/2
-Days of Heaven: ****
-The Thin Red Line: ***

cine


mutinyco

I think Kubrick was precisely right in choosing Spielberg. He was the perfect Trojan Horse. He was the perfect messenger to deliver these ideas and themes because nobody expected him to do it. It wasn't self-parody -- it was deconstructing his symbols.

I don't think the film plays as 2 people's ideas of what it should be. Time will melt away any of that stigma. The fact is, the areas people think were inherently Kubrick's and those that were Spielberg's are different. Kubrick fully designed the first act and the third act (including the finale where he dies looking like a Hallmark commercial), but had never connected the pieces of the middle section -- Spielberg did that.

And I met Jan Harlan and Christiane Kubrick 2 years ago -- and they were adamant that this film is as Stanley intended it to be.

The problem is that people brought too much expectation with them to see a film by one or the other. That's why time will lull that response. And we'll just be left with a pretty ballsy film.

And yes, I am a computer. An Apple. :)
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Gold Trumpet

Quote from: mutinycoAnd I met Jan Harlan and Christiane Kubrick 2 years ago -- and they were adamant that this film is as Stanley intended it to be.

How can that be truthful though? Given both are different filmmakers, both naturally will approach a script or a story from different avenues of thought and a different feeling that could take the other's easily out of context and all. Its like saying that two men, given the same Shakespeare play, will make it exactly the same because the text is the same. No! Each person will do it differently because the matter of the text is in choosing how and what to look at most importantly. Generally,  I believe Kubrick would have lingered through the story. Speilberg ran through it. Both are different filmmakers and would have approached the work in the editing room (where Kubrick has said the real art of film comes because it the reshifting and reshaping of the movie to your specific desire at the time after doing all the work and having had the movie in your mind for years). Personally, I think that quote came from an advertiser's perspective of selling a movie.

~rougerum